The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-11-03
Other Points Relied Upon by the Petit
TONERS Do Not Appear in the Record.
The Condemned Men Receive the News Coolly
and Quietly, and Without Displaying
Outward Evidence of Disappointment.
The Chicago Authorities Fully Prepared
for Any and All Emergencies.
All Eyes Turned Toward Governor Oglesby,
Who Declines to Give the Faintest Indica-
tion of His Intentions in the Matter.
THE PETITION DENIED.

THE PETITION DENIED.
The Supreme Court Refuses to Issue n Writ
of Error in the Anarchist Case.
WAsHINGToN, Oct. 2.-The decision Of the
United States Supreme Court upon the petition
for a writ of error in the case of tho Chicago
Anarchists was announced this afternoon by
Chief Justice Waite in q long q id carefully pre-
pared opinion which occupied thirty five min
utes in the reading. The opinion is as follows:
when, as iE this case. application is made to
us on the suggestion of one of our number to
whom similar application had previously been
addressed for the allowance OF a writ OF error
TO the highest court OF State under Section
7O9 OF the Revised Statutes. it is duty to
certain not only whether any question revieva-
proper court below. but whether it is of
character to justify US in bringing the
judgment hero for re-examinatior. In our
opinion the writ ought not to be allowed
by the court. if it appears from the face of the
record that the decision of the federal question
which is complained of was plainly right
not to require argument, and especially if it is
in accordance with our own well-coDsdered
judgment in similar cases. That is. in effect,
what done in Twitchell vs. The Common
wealth, Wall 323, when the writ was refused
because the questions resented by the record
were mo longer subjects of discussion, although,
If they had been, in the opinion of the court,
open. it would have been allowed When. un-
der Section OF our Rule o. a motion to affirm
is united with motion to dismiss for want of
jurisdiction. the practice has been to grant the
motion to affirm when the question on which our
right that the case ought not to be held for fur
ther argument tArrowsmith Harmoning
118 United States, 194. 195; Church VS.. Kelsy
12l United States, 282 The propriety of
court for the allowance of writ is apparent
for certainly We would not be justified as
conrt in sending out a writ to bring up for re-
view judgment of the highest court of a
Stare when il IS apparent on the faes of thss
record that ir would be ourdnty to grant msk
ton to affirm as soon as it was made IN proper
form.
'sIn the present case we have had the benefit
of argument in support of the application, and
while counsel have not deemed it their duty to
SO fully into the merits of the questions in
volved, they have shown distinctly what the
decisions were of which they complain and how
the questions arose In this way we are able to
determine a court, in session, whistler the
errors alleged are such to justify as in bring
ing the case here for review.
'We proceed, then, TO consider what the ques-
tions are on which, if il exists at ali, our iuris
diction depends. The particular provisions of
the Constitution ct the United States, on which
counsel rely are found in Articles ~, V, vi and
XIV, of the amendments as follows
'Article ". The right of the people to be secure
IN their houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be vio
lated.
Article V. No person shall be compelled in any
criminal case to bear witness against himself bs
deprived of ife liberty property without due pro-
of law
ARTICLE VI. In all criminal prosecutions the ac-
cused shall enjoy the right to speedy and public
trial by impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
.'Ar5,cle XIV, Section l. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty prop
erty without due process of law.
''That the first ten articles of amendment were
not intended to limit the powers of the State
governments in respect to their own citizens, but
to operate the national government alone,
was decided more than half century ago, and
that decision has been steadily adhered to since.
ingston vs. Moore; idem., 400, 552; Fox VS.. Ohio,
How, 40, 434; Smith vs. Maryland 13 How,
Il, 76 Withers VS.. Buckley, 20 How, 84, 81;
Pervear vs. the Common wealth, 5 Wall, AIS, 479;
Twitchell VS.. the Commonwealth, z How, 321,
32o; Justices VS.. Murray, Wall, 274, 279; Ed
wards VS.. Elliot, 81 Wall, 532, 557: Walker VS..
Cruikshank, 80 United States, 542 SOP; Pearson
VS.. Yewdan, 95 United States, 294, 296; David
son VS.. New Orleans. 96 United States 81, 101;
Kelley VS.. Pittsbure, 1O4 United States 10;
Presser VS.. Illinois, 116 United States, 252 265)
1T was contended, however, in argument that
though originally the first ten amendments
were adopted as limitations on federal power,
yet in so far as they secure and recognize funda-
amental rights, common law rights of
the man, they make them privileges and i'm
munities of the man a citizen of the United
States and cannot now be abridged by a State
under the fourteenth amendment. In other
words, while the ten amendments as limitations
Of power, only apply to the federal government
and not TO the States vet in so far as they de-
clare or recognize rights of persons, these rights
are theirs as citizens of the United States. and
and the fourteenth amendment, to such
rights, limits State power as the ten amend
msnts had limited federal power 1t is also
contended that the provision of the fourteenth
amendment which declares that State shall
deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law implies that every
person charged with crime in a State shall be
entitled to trial by an impartial jury, and shall
not be compelled to testify against him. The
are, in brief, first, that a statute of
the State, construed by the court, deDrives
the petitioners of a trial by an impartial jury,
and second, that Spies was compelled to give
evidence against himself.
Before considering whether the Constitution
Of the United States has the effect which is
claimed, 1t is proper to inquire whether the fed
eral questions relied on are in fact, of this
record. One statute to which objection is made
was approved March r. 1874, and has been in
force since July l OF that year. The complaint
is that the trial court, acting under this statute,
and in accordance with it's requirements, com
PEELED the petitioners against their will, TO sub
NIT to trial by jury that was not impartial,
and thus deprived them of one of the funda-
mental rights which they mad as citizens of the
United States under the national Constitution,
and if the sentence of the court is carried into
execution they will be deprived of their lives,
without due process of law. In Hopt VS.. Utah,
100 United States, 439, t was decided by this
court tnat When challenge by defendant IN q
criminal action to a juror for bias actual or i'm
piled, is dsallowed, and the juror is thersupon
peTemD Dtorily challenged by the defendant and
excused, and an impartial and competent juror
is obtained in bis place, no injury is done the de-
fendant. if, until the jury is completed, he has
other peremptory challenges which he use,
and so in Hayes vs. Missouri 30 United States,
II, it said the right TO challenge is the right
to reject, not to select juror. If from those
wh1 were impartial a jury is obtained, the con-
stitutional right of the accused is maintained.
Of the correctness of these rulings we entertain
no doubt. We are, therefore, confined in this
:ase the rulings the challenges TO the jurors
who actually sat at tie trial. or these there